Sharron Smith:

Here is my post.  Let the games begin!

Brilliant, Sharron!  We've been wondering: where have you been?  Your absence is excused.  Your return is applauded.  Your comment is commended.  Three woofs!

 

Harlan Miller:

I’m not a big fan of the notion of a hate crime.  I think people should be punished for their actions, provided they knew what they were doing.  The question of motive, I think, should come in supporting or rebutting claims of mitigation or extenuation.  But, of course, it is not an ideal world and one of the reasons we have the category of hate crime is that crimes against the despised have, in some times and places, been ignored or even condoned.  I can see no objection to extending the list of the frequently despised to include those with minority sexual orientation.  There is no doubt that these people are often the targets of abuse.

But hate crime legislation does not criminalize any activity that was not already criminal.  Instead it typically increases the range of possible penalties, and, crucially, allows transfer of cases from local jurisdiction to the state or federal level. 

So modifying hate crime legislation in this way couldn’t threaten anyone’s freedom of religious expression unless that includes actions that are already illegal.  If your notion of free religious expression includes human sacrifice, forcible mutilation, or the murder of apostates, then you’re out of luck.  And that’s a very good thing.

 

Dear Mr. Harlan,

I think you have encapsulated the cornerstone of the law.  This is not about thoughts or beliefs or routine crimes.  The Sheppard and Byrd murders epitomize the excessive brutality that characterizes hate crimes.  Such crimes move beyond simple murder or assault and deserve special condemnation, protections, and prosecutions. 

Sharron  

Nick Prout:

But nooooooo, we now have the Federal "Hate Crimes Act" and since Joe mugged a female it is now up to the thought police to read Joe the lowlife's mind and figure out whether he mugged the woman because he hates females or that she was an easy mark.

Mr. Nick,

The mugging of a woman, Catholic priest, gay or ***, a white truck driver, an African-American professor, or a man in a wheelchair would never qualify as a possible hate crime.  Hate crimes are characterized by excessive violence and unwarranted brutality.  Compare a mugging to the murder of James Byrd.  The differences distinguish a hate crime from a mugging.

Sharron  

Clonnie Yearout:

People with money are robbed because they have money.  Weak people sometimes get bullied because they're weak.  Women are raped because they're women.  All crime is committed because the victim has something the perpetrator wants, and he hates them enough to take it.  If we strengthened our judicial system by punishing crime relentlessly we might lessen the need for specialized categories of crime deserving of extra punishment, but then again, our efforts might be better spent trying to lessen the hate that causes the crime in the first place.  Then, after we abolish hate we can tackle the really hard problems.

Clonnie, I think you missed your calling.  You should have been a professor of philosophy and theology.  You seem to enjoy abstract discussions with preposterously unlikely scenarios to make some long-winded point about right versus wrong and the nature of man.  Sometimes my b.s. detector goes off the scale when you write about such things.  All crime is not a manifestation of hate, and hate is not a normal way of thinking about peaceful people we do not know.  Many criminals are very rational and it is not personal.  They want to get something, and hurting people might be unintentional, incidental, and a source of regret. 

But I think you might be on to something sensible here: lessening the causes of crime in addition to punishing criminal behavior.  In the case of hate crimes, it does not seem likely that criminal laws will combat hate, just attacks motivated by it.  And I am skeptical about the deterrence factor.  Hate crimes are commonly committed by irrationally angry, mean, violent people.  What federal prosecution can do is bring such criminals to justice in cases where state and local law enforcement officials are not effectively addressing the problem.  People who value law and order, who respect their fellow man, should not find this too offensive, it seems to me.

Luanne Traud:

Could adding sexual orientation to the federal hate crime law pose a threat to the freedom of religious expression?

 

 

The addition of yet another category to the Federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) may not currently pose a direct threat to religious expression but it does bring up a related question. Is the justice system of the US being overly Federalized? Only three Federal crimes are mentioned in the Constitution, treason, counterfeiting and piracy. By 2008, the number of Federal crimes had grown to 4,550. The evolution of hate crime legislation is a perfect example of the Fed's constant expansion into the law enforcement responsibilities of the States. While 45 states have hate legislation in place, and surely the remaining 5 will become "enlightened," all with stiffer penalties than the Federal statutes, political expedience has dictated Federal intrusion into crimes against protected groups. Even more disturbing is that the latest version of Federal HCPA (H.R. 1913) does not require that the government prove motivation by hatred, bias or prejudice. Subsection 249(a)(1) states that the act (hate crime) must be "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person." This dilution of hate crime standards could place a majority of violent crimes under Federal jurisdiction, even those not aimed toward a members of protected groups. Is this nothing more than political "feel good" legislation, not necessary for protection from acts that already are covered by State laws? There are also doubts as to the constitutionality of HCPA's quest to supersede state and local law enforcement authorities

Many already think the the whole notion of "hate crimes" is redundant, counterproductive and a cause of jurisdictional squabbles while not being a deterrent to violent crimes. Any further expansion of hate crime definitions just may give preachers cause to watch what they are saying.

 

Luanne Traud:

Could adding sexual orientation to the federal hate crime law pose a threat to the freedom of religious expression?

 

 

More perplexing than this question is the lack of compassion some possess for victims of hate crimes. Adding sexual orientation to the federal hate crimes law is not a threat to the freedom of religious expression.  On this issue, Pat Robertson recently stated: "The noose has tightened around the necks of Christians to keep them from speaking out on certain moral issues." Unless religions are targeting groups by promoting criminal acts, there is no reason for concern.

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act clarifies that nothing in the Act "shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities...including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment..." There is no intent to affect the existing rules of evidence. Prosecutors are not involved unless there is a criminal act. Federal resources and funding will enable authorities from all levels of government "to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution" of certain violent crimes motivated by bias-often interstate in nature.  

Victims of hate crimes are specifically targeted because of their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. In the past 10 years, 12,000 crimes based on sexual orientation alone have been recorded. Crimes against innocent people because of their sexual orientation cannot be tolerated. Hate crimes should cause us to advocate for those that are targets rather than divide us.

If religions were to promote criminal acts against particular groups, government would need to protect its citizens. As the late Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun once stated, "A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."

 

 

Sharron Smith:

The threat to religious freedom does not come from a law that defines hate crimes – it comes from within a congregation when it fails to recognize the inherent dignity and worth of every other citizen. 

 

Great post Sharron!! I have quoted my favorite line.

 

Sandy Light:

Those who "disagree with" homosexuality (which I've always equated with "disagreeing with" diabetes or blue eyes) may continue to do so. It is simply against the law to incite or inflict bodily harm.  The law remains the same in this regard.

This addition to the law (as well as the resulting controversy!) has the advantage of highlighting discrimination.  Benevolence toward and tolerance of all of God's children is encouraged and prioritized in this statute.  An increased acceptance of all people regardless of race, religion, and sexual orientation could create even greater intolerance - but in this case - of dogmatic hostility.

 

 I really enjoyed your post Sandy!

Clonnie Yearout:

Religions and religious leaders who have previously taught that the practice of homosexuality is a sin will now have to decide whether to continue doing so. It’s not difficult to imagine a scenario whereby a disturbed individual commits a crime against a homosexual, then offers for a defense the argument that his religion or his pastor condemns the practice of homosexuality. Although the religious leader may have limited his condemnation to the practice of homosexuality and not to the homosexual himself, the possibility of legal action still looms large.

 

Mr. C,

While this may be a fear, it is not a realistic assessment of the hate crimes extension.  I am not by any means a legal scholar, however, there must be some direct connection or immediacy between words and deeds.  While you cite religious leaders fears, these are exaggerations.  To be a hate crime, the purpotrator must be shown to display an immediate link between words and deeds.  The intent is not to charge ministers with aiding in a hate crime.  Only when a religious leader promoted violence as an effective way to conclude a religious service or an act of violence was an immediate response to a sermon urging and inciting such violence could another be implicated in a hate crime.  If ministers feel threatened by this act, imagine how a homosexual feels after hearing his minister label him a sinner or an abomination.     

I have difficulty envisioning the ministers I have known engaging in such actions -- even those who believe homosexuality is a sin.  Raising an assault or murder to the level of a hate crime is difficult and rightly so.  It may well cause a few of the extremist ministers to temper or moderate the language or words they use when condemning protected groups, but after the heated words of August, I am not sure that is a bad thing.  Freedom of speech, like all rights, comes with responsibilities:  one can not yell fire in a crowded theater. 

Sharron Smith      

Clonnie Yearout:

People with money are robbed because they have money.  Weak people sometimes get bullied because they're weak.  Women are raped because they're women.  All crime is committed because the victim has something the perpetrator wants, and he hates them enough to take it.  If we strengthened our judicial system by punishing crime relentlessly we might lessen the need for specialized categories of crime deserving of extra punishment, but then again, our efforts might be better spent trying to lessen the hate that causes the crime in the first place.  Then, after we abolish hate we can tackle the really hard problems.  

 

Mr. C,

If crime were this simple, we could all join the NRA and eliminate the need for many laws.  In truth, crimes occur for many reasons.  Women are raped because of anger, fears, "love", and hate.  A rape is not just a rape, and a rape is never about sex.  Some rapes are hate crimes.  Most perpetrators committ crimes because of a need like money and because they do not believe they will be caught.  Few ever express hatred as a motivation for robbery or even murder.  

Sharron   

Marvin Foster:

Liniel Gregory:

I don't like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Al Gore, the Dallas Cowboys,

 

 Liniel,  I'm with you..used to like the Cowboys, but Roger Staubach retired and they fired Tom Landry.

 

 Gentlemen, 

I always feel better when we panelists agree.  Like you, I do not care for the Dallas Cowboys.

Sharron

Frederick Fuller:

Perhaps your status on the panel will be eclipsed by what I have offered.

It's okay for us to disagree, Frederick, but I think it's great that we can do it agreeably.  Isn't this a great country?!  It's my prayer (sorry) that we always enjoy the freedom to hold and speak about our diverse beliefs.  I'm getting ready to go vote, and while I probably won't be voting in unison with you today, we can rejoice that we live in a land where we're still able to enjoy the benefits of the ballot.

PS.  I can understand you doubting the deity of Jesus, but I'm intrigued by your statement that you're beginning to doubt his very existence.  It seems to me that there is more evidence for his physical existence than that of, say, Julius Caesar, or any other ancient figure.   

I've just returned from exercising my constitutional right to vote, and I'm proud to say that I voted exactly like the panel would expect me to.  I voted for Morgan Griffith even though his campaign commercials set new records for corniness every time he runs.  I'm a little suspicious of those touch screens, but I looked around and they didn't have any of the old, noisy, mechanical machines.  Some guy outside was giving out pro Fair Tax literature so I paused a moment to encourage him.

Sharron Smith:

 The Sheppard and Byrd murders epitomize the excessive brutality that characterizes hate crimes.

Since we've brought Mr Byrd into the discussion, I seem to remember that His murder was laid at the feet of George W. Bush, who had opposed hate crime legislation.  It wasn't enough that the perpetrators of this heinous crime were rightly eligible for the death penalty under Texas law, they needed to be convicted of hate.  Had Texas had a hate crime law, perhaps a long prison sentence could have been added to these criminals' death sentences.  The case does serve to illustrate one point I made earlier:  People and politicians will use such a law (or even the non-existence of such a law) as a club to pound those who had no connection to the original crime.  It seems that simply opposing hate crime legislation opens one up to the charge of being pro-hate.  You oppose hate crime legislation?  You must hate group X!

 

Deb Landgraf:

  If religions were to promote criminal acts against particular groups, government would need to protect its citizens. As Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun stated, "A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."   

 

 Dear Sister Deb,

A really great post -- Blackmun's quote was the "cherry on top."

Sharron

Clonnie Yearout:

People and politicians will use such a law (or even the non-existence of such a law) as a club to pound those who had no connection to the original crime.  It seems that simply opposing hate crime legislation opens one up to the charge of being pro-hate.  You oppose hate crime legislation?  You must hate group X!  

 

 Now, now, now Mr. C,

This is not an either or situation -- your dichotomy evades the central issue.  Was the Byrd murder a typical murder?  (Gosh, I can not believe we are talking about usual or typical murder!)  Did the excessive brutality indicate an act motivated by the inherent characterristics of the victim (race)?  Was there immediate, overt, and direct evidence that the perpetrators targeted the victim because of race?  Did the state prosecute fully?  Would additional resources have been helpful or made the investigation more expedient?  What help was offered to the family of the victim?  What if Byrd survived?  What recourse would he have had for justice?  These questions do not ask pro-hate or anti-hate.  They establish a legal standard or threshold by which to determine if a crime meets a reprehensible level that our society deems beyond the pale of a "simple crime" and is so escessively egregious that it warrants unusual and specific punishments.   

Moreover, Clonnie, would designation as a hate crime have conveyed a message that this form of crime is especially repugnant to our society -- one so excessive and henious that we reserve a special condemnation and penalities for its perpetrators?   This was not just a murder Clonnie -- when you have to pick up pieces of the victim down miles of pavement and lift his head from a concrete culvert -- we are in an entirely new ball park.  If you do not view this as a hate crime, it does not make you a racist.  However, if Byrd or Sheppard strike you as the typical murder where you live -- I would move to another state or region where murders are "normal."

Sharron